The administration is not at all focused on policy. The game is only manipulation of the public. The present person positioned as POTUS, is a bad actor. It doesn't even matter if he is a good actor or a bad actor. The present person is only focused on manipulation of the mass public consciousness to create division and disable effective mass engagement for reasonable action. That is the bottomline and the only game in town. That is the only game in town everywhere on the planet. Everyone of the present type of international leaders know that. They also know that the best game-player is to make sure that their populations in their states don't know the real game. The present POTUS is a lousy actor, and a superb game-player. The reality for nations and their individual states is it is only possible to play that game for certain periods of time and with varying degrees of state survival. How much of a failed state, or states are profitable for the few to continue to obtain profits successfully for just themselves? How long can they meet their individual levels of self-gratification without being destroyed themselves? Is the dog inherently nasty? Or how long can you abuse the dog before it not only bites you, but kills you? Tweets are effective for quick reactive responses, and distractions. 25 words or less is the effective comprehension level that is desired for control of mass populations, especially in the US.

Kruscheva thinks 'US President George H.W Bush famously warned against 'voodoo economics'. She appears to be unaware that Bush quietly became the Vice President of the man whose economic policies he had previously attacked.
Khruscheva is a Professor at the New School. Why is she exhibiting her ignorance in this way?

Perhaps she just made a slip of the pen or is too young to remember the Reagan years. Still, she might try to cast her arguments into a logically coherent form.
In her first paragraph she claims that Trump, Kaczynski and Putin are 'predisposed to believe in outlandish conspiracies'. If so, how did they attain success? Did Putin whisper outlandish theories in Yeltsin's ears? No. He was sensible and moderate. Indeed, this was how he was perceived in the West till recently. What about Trump? Which outlandish conspiracy did he endorse during his long and very public career? Yes, he though Obama might have been born in Kenya. But then Obama's half-brother said he had proof this was the case. There is no outlandish conspiracy here.

The US bugged the German Chancellor. Is it outlandish to believe some organ of the State might not have bugged Trump and that Obama could have got access to related transcripts? No. Not at all. Indeed, if there is any truth to allegations of Russian financial backing for Trump's businesses, a good legal case for this happening would exist.

Kaczynski is a separate case. He is an MP with some image problems who has shown some wisdom and political sensitivity which is why he retains influence. If he were 'emulating Putin's autocratic methods' he would hold the highest office and concentrate power in that office. He has followed the opposite strategy.

Khruscheva may think that 'Russian greatness' is something every other nation supports and so Putin is mad to believe this is being undermined by any one. Unfortunately this is an outlandish belief. The West really does want to undermine 'Russian greatness' because History has taught us that 'Russian greatness' really isn't great for non-Russians. Indeed, it's probably not so great for Russians either. Shame, but there it is.

Why is Khruscheva mentioning Richard Hofstadter? The recent literature on the paranoid style does not connect it with Trump who though an 'outsider' like Ross Perot or R.W Welch- did not create his own outfit.
Hofstadter got a lot of things wrong. Goldwater doesn't look so bad now. Hillary presented herself as having started off as a Goldwater gal. Trump and Bannon grew up sneering at the Birchers.
Glenn Beck might be seen as in the Hofstadter mould. But he was anti Trump.
Khruscheva, admittedly, may not know much about American politics but that should put her on her mettle. She should fact-check her articles.
But, at a more basic level, Khruscheva is culturally miscued in a truly hopeless manner. Why mention Didion's White Album now? Trump and Bannon and so on had a very different experience of the Sixties and Seventies and, in the Eighties, came into their own as the polar opposite of Didion's mise en scene.
Why does Khruscheva not mention the influence of Rasputin on Putin? After all, both were Russian and their names sound alike. The answer is she is not completely ignorant of Russia. You can't put Rasputin and Putin together. They don't belong. They have nothing in common. Still, if Khruscheva continues to write articles like this the day will come when she will yoke Rasputin and Putin together. That's what happens when you stop caring about what you publish.

Has NATO surrounded Russia with missiles? Yes.
After we told them that we would not do so? Yes. (WE lied.)
Did US NGO's/Soros effectively overthrow a Democratically elected President in Ukraine? Yes.
The US has a very long history of meddling in other Countries business. South America - check. Iran - check.
Putin isn't paranoid. Rather, he is on the ball.

I wonder how Nina's attempt at disproving Tusk's alleged involvement in Putin's murder of Lech Kaczynski makes the new investigation initiated by Jaroslav Kaczynski a priori absurd and invalid. Lech's real murder by Putin's order and Tusk's innocence in this case can easily co-exist.
Tshchateljneye nado, gospozha Khrushcheva.

Although I am inclined to agree with your conclusions you make broad statements about the accuracy of facts you cannot in any way prove. Who really knows for sure about things like US plots against Putin or wiretapping of Trump? Accordingly, you are no better than them and also a pedlar of alternative facts.

It is easier to defeat imaginary problems than real ones. Create imaginary problems, market paranoia to create a demand it is addressed, offer your solution. Job done. The only exception to Einsteins rule of thumb that the people who create the problem cannot be expected to solve it.

By the same token it is easy to engage in tactics that are so bold that if any accuses you of them you paint them as crazies. See NSA spying on Americans or Doping by Lance Armstrong as examples. The truth can never be reached simply by looking at the content of the message.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.